Tuesday, June 26, 2012

NOTE: As I discussed in the Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign thread, in the redesign I’m making non-baseball content opt-in. Until the redesign is done (about two months), I’m designating one thread each month (similar to the basketball and soccer threads) as Off-Topic Politics (OT-P) and will restrict off-topic political conversations to that thread. Off-topic political comments which appear in other threads will be deleted. Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I confess to not being able to fully monitor the various sources of "offense" between which the liberal lurches, but wasn't the most "offensive" provision of the Arizona law the "Your papers, please," upheld 8-nil by the Supremes?

It was, but that provision was also left open for reconsideration pending the introduction of evidence of racial profiling. A law can be constitutional on its face and in theory, but enforced in an unconstitutional manner. And for that upheld provision to last longer than the first court challenge, the Arpaios and their xenophobic brethren are likely going to have to undergo lobotomies to curb their instinctive behavior.

And given that the other three key provisions of the law were thrown out, that was hardly a great victory yesterday for the nation's Arpaios and Brewers.

Is Kerry a phony because he tried to claim the mantle of Vietnam war hero whilst simultaneously trying to erase the fact that he tossed his medals over the White House fence and accused the entire Army of war atrocities in front of Congress in 1972

What the #### is this bullshit? Are you Jerome Corsi? John Kerry's in and after Vietnam are unimpeachable.

I don't see it -- Biden is certainly nothing if not "prepared", having been at the highest level of government for four decades or so, and I'm pretty sure he'd be a standard-issue Democratic President. But anyway, that's what the guy thought.

I confess to not being able to fully monitor the various sources of "offense" between which the liberal lurches, but wasn't the most "offensive" provision of the Arizona law the "Your papers, please," upheld 8-nil by the Supremes?

It was, but that provision was also left open for reconsideration pending the introduction of evidence of racial profiling.

Right, but they've already held unanimously that "racial profliling" can't be inferred from the mere existence of the law -- the leftish conceit at issue. Actually proving "racial profiling" through admissable evidence is a much tougher task than the preferred and typical method of assuming it and hissing or shouting down those who disagree.

Is Kerry a phony because he tried to claim the mantle of Vietnam war hero whilst simultaneously trying to erase the fact that he tossed his medals over the White House fence and accused the entire Army of war atrocities in front of Congress in 1972

Leaving aside what people think of Kerry's miltary record or of Kerry himself, this quote shows why Eso's "I am just a good egg here trying to talk politics here but all the liberals are too shrill and nasty" doesn't sell to me. Eso, to his credit, rarely attacks people here personally I(except Hutcheson, but hey, Hutcheson is Hutcheson) and Eso has said nice things about me and Andy and other BTF lefties on a personal level. But the way he frames his righty and GOP-talking-point political opinions is going to cause friction, and he doesn't seem to get that he is in any way responsible for that friction. Basically, if you don't want friction, don't frame every point as if the other side is stupid, dishonest, and full of shitt--and that is what you generally do, which is why I stopped trying to talk politics with you awhile back. I am sure you (Eso) are a great guy personally, and I have learned a lot about music from you, but those are separate points than this one.

As a BTF aside, I think it is funny that it is Furtado, not Repoz, who posted this.

I agree,and several of us responded to that post in non-personal terms. Why didn't you answer those people instead of ignoring them and concentrating on the one that made the personal accusation?

Because that response basically fortified me in my belief that it's largely fruitless to even attempt to discuss political issues here from a right-wing/conservative perspective. You notice that I really haven't done it at all in years. There are reasons for that, in part professional but largely because I find it too frustrating around here. And posters like JSLF are the reason why I quit. I made a mistake even posting in this thread, and I'm going to revert back to my earlier policy and just shut up entirely.

That's too bad, because even though we seldom agree on most issues, you almost always support your points with internally consistent logic. I guess I just take it as a given that at some point along the way we're all going to be a lone voice in a minority around here, and at some point we'll be part of a chorus. That's just the nature of a forum that attracts people of widely divergent worldviews.

As for the point in your earlier post, I will briefly point out that Romney's inherent political principle is conservative leaning pragmatism, i.e. whatever works, within certain bounds governed by a general ideological orientation. (This, actually, is sort of what Obama sold himself as during the 2008 race, and then promptly revealed himself to be a standard-issue liberal ideologue.) A lot of the "flip-flop" accusations and such simply carry no weight whatsoever with me, as they completely ignore the fact that we live in a nation where the ideological center of gravity w/r/t economic/government/spending issues has shifted sharply to the right (or rather to the libertarian) over the last several years. We simply aren't the same country in terms of general attitudes towards size and power of Federal government as we once were in 1990s or even the early '00s. Positions that were kosher for conservatives and Republicans now are on the liberal side of the spectrum -- and this is a wonderful, wonderful thing, but I don't hold it against politicians who were around during that era for having taken positions then, in order to be responsive to the will of their constituents, which is why they're elected, that they have had to evolve on as the sands have shifted.

That's one of the fanciest defenses I've ever seen for Romney's flip-flopping. If I had a hat on I'd tip it in your direction, and I'd even tip it towards Romney if he'd simply acknowledge that his famous "leadership" claims are based on nothing more than polls and focus groups, which is clearly the case to anyone with eyes and ears.

I find "rock solid ideologues" who don't change regardless of how the electorate changes to be largely deplorable, NOT admirable. I think people who fetishize that quality as "noble" or "principled" are fooling themselves. You might want that as a personal quality in a friend, but politicians are supposed to run the friggin' country, and I see no virtue whatsoever in glorifying, literally, the idea of a non-responsive government full of elected officials who do what THEY want and don't give a damn about what YOU want.

Then why not replace representative government by polling and referendums and do away with the middlemen?

I'm not discussing the written dissent, David. I'm discussing the bench reading. Try to keep up.

I admit that I did not personally listen to the bench reading. Are you claiming that he read the other 21 pages really really fast, and then he read that one page on Obama's recent announcement really really slowly, such that the one page about Obama's policy took up the same amount of time as the other 21 pages?

#202: Agreed. Kerry was a war hero, a status he could have easily ridden into politics. Instead, he became a prominent spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and was the first Vietnam veteran to testify before Congress about the war. As part of an anti-war demonstration, he and many other vets tossed their medals over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. Feel free to disagree with his views, but that's pretty much the opposite of phoniness. (As a Democrat, I wish that John Kerry had run for president; he would've lost by a smaller margin.)

If by "serious" you mean honest and sincere, no I do not know whether you are or were or not.

But if you want a blow by blow account on why I doubted that post's sincerity:

"surely nobody is arguing that his ... commitment to private charity is phony"

"this is a guy who literally spends his spare time building houses for people and uprooting stumps and making sure there's no media coverage of it"

No he simply has his political surrogates like Sunnunnu point out how much Mitt contributed to charity as compared to oh, Obama... and of course the wholly non-partisan WSJ "reported" that Romney's charitable giving was "far above average"

"Again: the whole "Romney's so PHONY!" thing is just a meme that liberals repeat to themselves without actually analyzing it, because if they actually tried to square it with his public actions and words it would be immediately clear that it ISN'T true."
You mean like his flip flopping, his being pro-life/healthcare when running for office in Liberal Massasoit and being pro life and anti-Obamacare when running in a Republican primary- I mean all politco's flip flop- but Romney is stunning at it, especially on those so-called "value" issues that you rarely see flips on.

"I mean, it's not like he's an ultra-rich, adulterous trial lawyer posing as a 'virtuous man of the people' -- that was John Edwards' schtick"
Jeebus, you want to use John Freaking Edwards as your line of comparison???
What next, you want to argue that Alito is not a harsh judge, after all Roy Bean sentenced 50 innocent men to hang?

"Romney holds himself out as the guy he truly seems to be: a very rich businessman with a strong pragmatic streak, a downright admirable personal life, and a decidedly awkward public bearing borne out of native caution and the ghosts of his father's experiences."

you don't see how writing "strong pragmatic streak" rings of being spin WRT his well-deserved reputation for flip-flopping? Of course that could be two sides of the same coin, I suspect that he very well may be a very pragmatic President, but that is not inconsistent with him being phony with regard to his professions of belief.

"borne out of native caution and the ghosts of his father's experiences." who writes like that? I mean seriously, aside from political or literary hacks, who writes like that?

"a downright admirable personal life" how do you know? and plus there is that bit about the family dog out there :-)

I admit that I did not personally listen to the bench reading. Are you claiming that he read the other 21 pages really really fast, and then he read that one page on Obama's recent announcement really really slowly, such that the one page about Obama's policy took up the same amount of time as the other 21 pages?

No, David. I'm discussing the bench reading, which was covered by court reporters. Neither you, nor I have first person reference to that reading (because Christ knows the SCOTUS is far too good to allow video cameras in their hallowed, holy halls.) You are attempting to shift the discussion to the dry text, because that allows you to presume that the dry text and the reading are identical, when they are not. I will not accept your moving the goal posts like that.

I confess to not being able to fully monitor the various sources of "offense" between which the liberal lurches, but wasn't the most "offensive" provision of the Arizona law the "Your papers, please," upheld 8-nil by the Supremes?

Yes, indeed it was.

And indeed, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower Arizona court couldn't invalidate a law whose legality had not yet been ascertained. That's about all. The Supreme Court also all but stated that once the law was implemented, it would be challenged, at which point it would also be overturned. So it was 8-0 for procedure.

In the meantime, by striking most of the law, the SC completely obliterated what remains. An Arizona policeman may go up to a person of suspicion and ask to see their papers, yes. But the suspect now has the right to say no and then do a moonwalk dance without further legal repercussion.

The law has been thoroughly defanged. One tooth remains, but the Court has scheduled a followup dentist's appointment for 2013 or 2014.

As a BTF aside, I think it is funny that it is Furtado, not Repoz, who posted this.

"Here, I invite you to discuss this topic. But maybe you shouldn't really be discussing it, as I don't want this site to be known as a site that discusses these topics; so I'll have to put you on your own special micro-island. What? I implied that it was wrong for you to discuss it?"

As part of an anti-war demonstration, he and many other vets tossed their medals over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. Feel free to disagree with his views, but that's pretty much the opposite of phoniness.

Is Kerry a phony because he tried to claim the mantle of Vietnam war hero whilst simultaneously trying to erase the fact that he tossed his medals over the White House fence and accused the entire Army of war atrocities in front of Congress in 1972

He'd be a phony if in fact:

1: He really was not a "war hero;" or
2: He was trying to "erase" the fact that he opposed the war after he got home.

#202: Agreed. Kerry was a war hero, a status he could have easily ridden into politics. Instead, he became a prominent spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and was the first Vietnam veteran to testify before Congress about the war. As part of an anti-war demonstration, he and many other vets tossed their medals over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. Feel free to disagree with his views, but that's pretty much the opposite of phoniness. (As a Democrat, I wish that John Kerry had run for president; he would've lost by a smaller margin.)

Okay, I can't help myself...this is addressed to you, robinred, and WJ:

Notice I never took aim at the stuff the Swift Boaters went at Kerry over, i.e. the propriety of his Purple Hearts and truth behind various stories he told about his Vietnam service. I don't care about that stuff, and I thought it was pretty dirty. But Kerry's actions after he got back from the war are a matter of public record, and your point here doesn't refute mine so much as it BOLSTERS it. Kerry's anti-Vietnam demonstrations in 1972 and onwards might well have been heartfelt and genuine, I dunno. Let's grant that they are. What's indubitably PHONY, however, is running in 2004 on the premise that "I, John Kerry, was a patriotic war hero and friend to our military men!" with the background he had of, as you say, throwing his medals away and giving Congressional testimony spuriously accusing his fellow enlisted men of being war criminals. (It's not as if that's just some "minor thing," folks.) It's really, really hard to square "I'm John Kerry, reporting for duty!" with "we raped and pillaged like Genghis Khan" back in 1972.

If Kerry had run for Prez in '04 by owning up to his rather 'complicated' immediate post-Vietnam actions that would have been very non-phony. If he had just kept silent about it, in fact, that wouldn't exactly have been a profile in courage but hey: acceptable to accentuate the positive and downplay the negative. But the phoniness came in the way his primary posture, his major selling-point to voters, was based on being a patriotic war hero, with no reference whatsoever to all that other stuff.

But Kerry's actions after he got back from the war are a matter of public record, and your point here doesn't refute mine so much as it BOLSTERS it. Kerry's anti-Vietnam demonstrations in 1972 and onwards might well have been heartfelt and genuine, I dunno. Let's grant that they are. What's indubitably PHONY, however, is running in 2004 on the premise that "I, John Kerry, was a patriotic war hero and friend to our military men!"

No. His actions upon coming home prove that in John Kerry's opinion, as a decorated veteran of the very war he was protesting, the most patriotic action he could take, which would also be the action most aligned with the best interests of those still fighting that same war, would be to protest the war vehemently and bring it to an end as quickly as possible.

To summarize @229, the error Eso makes @227 is to believe that the only patriotic, military friendly action possible is the action that refuses to question war.

I don't even mind the tossing away of the medals (though the fact that he actually was throwing *somebody else's* medals is really delicious). It's the spurious and slanderous accusations of widespread war crimes (remember, he compared his fellow soldiers to Genghis Khan) that really sticks in my craw.

Even with that, people are missing my point. A lot of you are responding by DEFENDING Kerry's actions back then. Fine. I disapprove, but you're welcome to defend them -- it's a legitimate position albeit one I strongly disagree with. That's not the issue, however. The issue is that Kerry made his name by leveling unproven and slanderous accusations of widespread, systematic war atrocities against his fellow soliders in front of Congress...and then in 2004 had the temerity to premise his entire Presidential campaign on "Vote for me, I'm a patriotic soldier who you can trust to do the right thing for our military men and women." With no reference to or explanation of his earlier acts.

Whether you approved or disapproved of Kerry's anti-war activities in the 1970s, the reversal there is so stark that it would seem to be the textbook definition of "phony," at least as many are using the term in this thread.

I never thought the Swift Boating of Kerry was fair. (At least not as a weapon used by the Republicans. If the people he served with were upset with him, that's another thing, and at least they have standing to take issue with him.) But Kerry went to the war, and should have been given credit for it. That's not to say that I am a fan of what he did when he came back, but Vietnam for Kerry should have, in fairness, been a net positive. But a net negative was unfair, and I don't like the way his service while over there was attacked.

That said, he was a candidate who ran - and was nominated - knowing that he was going to have trouble from his political opponents on that score. So, while unfair, it was not unexpected. I don't say that to excuse it, but to point out that there was an argument he was unelectable.

Answer: nobody. Nobody thinks that. Nobody EVER has that reaction. Which leads me to believe that you are either 1.) The Most Sheltered Liberal In The World, without any exposure whatsoever to intelligent people who hold opposing views (doubtful),

It's more likely than you think. Plenty of today's liberals live their entire lives in narrow cocoons where their worldview is constantly reinforced. Their schools, their newspapers, their TV shows, their websites, their friends, all passing along the same received wisdom and approved beliefs, such that they come to mistake agreement for intelligence. To the extent they are aware of dissenting views, those views almost invariably take the form of strawmen or caricatures. On those rare occasions they venture outside their cocoon and encounter disagreement phrased intelligently, it causes them great cognitive dissonance. Thus the reliance on sneering dismissals, accusations of bad faith or downright evilness, and the refusal to engage with good faith arguments. While perhaps annoying to deal with in person, this is a weakness to be exploited.

Man, I missed these political threads (in all seriousness)... so someone please swallow their keyboard pride and apologize to Esoteric.

The Arnold was just a weird time where I think most people just black out because people still can't believe they elected The Terminator *twice*

The weirdest thing is that he turned out to be a perfectly capable governor of the most populous state of the most powerful country in the world. I never voted for him and certainly didn't agree with all of his ideas/policies... but actually he was one of the LEAST phoney politicians I can remember. I think him being generally famous (not just rich) insulated him from the need to make his political career the only bellweather of his self worth.

Kerry didn't exclude himself from the war crimes accusations, and his point was that the war itself and the government's prosecution of the war had led to the crimes, not that the US military was filled with evil maniacs.

Even with that, people are missing my point. A lot of you are responding by DEFENDING Kerry's actions back then. Fine. I disapprove, but you're welcome to defend them -- it's a legitimate position albeit one I strongly disagree with. That's not the issue, however. The issue is that Kerry made his name by leveling unproven and slanderous accusations of widespread, systematic war atrocities against his fellow soliders in front of Congress...and then in 2004 had the temerity to premise his entire Presidential campaign on "Vote for me, I'm a patriotic soldier who you can trust to do the right thing for our military men and women." With no reference to or explanation of his earlier acts

Again, you're confusing your partisanship and emotional dislike of John Kerry with argument.

John Kerry was a decorated Vietnam veteran.

John Kerry testified that there were significant war crimes carried out by his fellow American service members in Vietnam.

Neither of those acts disqualifies John Kerry from being either "a patriotic soldier" or someone "you can trust to do the right thing for our military." In fact, there's a perfectly reasonable argument that his willingness to hold his fellow service members accountable for their crimes indicates that he is in fact *more* patriotic and *more* qualified to "do right" by the military than someone who would look past any and all actions by service members out of some misplaced sense of "my side is never guilty of anything evil."

On an equally meaningful note, history indicates that Kerry was correct, and that large scale war crimes were happening in Vietnam.

Your argument seems to come down to the idea that no one who ever testified that there were war crimes in Vietnam could be honestly "patriotic soldier" or "do right by the military." That's a false assumption.

That said, he was a candidate who ran - and was nominated - knowing that he was going to have trouble from his political opponents on that score. So, while unfair, it was not unexpected. I don't say that to excuse it, but to point out that there was an argument he was unelectable.

Stop writing off bald faced lies by the GOP just because "it was politically convenient." You'd never give the same benefit to the Democrats, so at least be intellectually honest, Ray.

Both are more accomplished than any of the attorneys that post here, having had distinguished careers before reaching the Court and receiving the highest rating from the ABA.

Scalia: six years at a big firm, partner track, nothing particularly noteworthy.
Nine years as a law professor, two different schools, nothing particularly noteworthy.
Eight years as government counsel in various capacities. One (successful) Supreme Court argument.
Then four years on the federal bench, and then the Supreme Court.
Alito's career path is similar (although, to his credit - and unlike most Justices - he actually spent some time trying cases before a jury*).

It's not that these guys' careers were something other than "distinguished," it's just that they're so much like so many other federal judges. Nobody actually thinks the current nine are THE best nine legal minds in the country, do they? Well, OK, maybe Roberts.
Anyway, people forget just how many good lawyers are out there, and how many disqualify themselves through simple bad luck, bad timing, the "wrong" academic history, or the "wrong" career choice. For example, would it be so bad to nominate somebody who didn't go to Harvard/Yale/Chicago/Stanford? Or to have a criminal defense lawyer on the Court? Or at least somebody who has spent more time arguing for an individual, than for the government, over their career?

* - my own jury-trial experience outweighs that of Scalia + Breyer + Kagan + Roberts + Kennedy + Ginsburg, combined. Because I've done more than one. A couple of HOF-level appellate lawyers there (Ginsburg and Roberts), but nobody who's ever handled voir dire, or a sentencing hearing, or even an arraignment. It's interesting what aspects of legal experience we think are important to our highest court, and which ones no one gives a #### about.

That said, he was a candidate who ran - and was nominated - knowing that he was going to have trouble from his political opponents on that score. So, while unfair, it was not unexpected. I don't say that to excuse it, but to point out that there was an argument he was unelectable.

Stop writing off bald faced lies by the GOP just because "it was politically convenient." You'd never give the same benefit to the Democrats, so at least be intellectually honest, Ray.

1. What are you talking about? I thought my post #233 was pretty even-handed and objective. And the part you quoted did not take a position on anything, but was just a comment on what should have been expected and whether he was electable.

so let's see, Alito wants to ignore the fact that the petitioners are 14 because the ruling will also impact 17 year olds, fair enough

I have to walk back my statement. Not that I agree with your assessment of Alito's opinion, but when I commented on it, it turns out that I was actually thinking of C.J. Roberts' opinion; I had mixed them up in my head.

Alito's opinion is not the "bizarre rant" you describe it as, but it is more of a quick couple of points rather than a detailed demolishing. Rather, Alito was pointing out, in the part you object to here, that creating some sort of categorical constitutional rule which will affect almost exclusively 17-year olds because of sympathy one feels for 14-year olds is misguided.

Also, when you say he "acknowledges that judges will still have the discretion to sentence those 17.5 year old thrill killers to life in prison with no parole," that's only sort of true. What he acknowledges is that judges temporarily will have such discretion, but that the majority opinion already lays the groundwork for striking that down as well. Which makes sense, because the notion that the mandatoriness of the sentence has anything to do with the eighth amendment is nutty. Either the sentence is cruel & unusual or it isn't, but it can't be cruel & unusual because the judge didn't exercise discretion.

Your argument that "It's okay to strike down mandatory sentences because the judge can still impose them if he chooses" is not a constitutional argument, and as such really has nothing to do with Alito's point. He's not talking about policy.

It's more likely than you think. Plenty of today's liberals live their entire lives in narrow cocoons where their worldview is constantly reinforced. Their schools, their newspapers, their TV shows, their websites, their friends, all passing along the same received wisdom and approved beliefs, such that they come to mistake agreement for intelligence. To the extent they are aware of dissenting views, those views almost invariably take the form of strawmen or caricatures. On those rare occasions they venture outside their cocoon and encounter disagreement phrased intelligently, it causes them great cognitive dissonance. Thus the reliance on sneering dismissals, accusations of bad faith or downright evilness, and the refusal to engage with good faith arguments. While perhaps annoying to deal with in person, this is a weakness to be exploited.

Don't you just love how this is sweepingly and confidently asserted, without the faintest scintilla of supporting factual evidence?

#202: Agreed. Kerry was a war hero, a status he could have easily ridden into politics. Instead, he became a prominent spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and was the first Vietnam veteran to testify before Congress about the war. As part of an anti-war demonstration, he and many other vets tossed their medals over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. Feel free to disagree with his views, but that's pretty much the opposite of phoniness. (As a Democrat, I wish that John Kerry had run for president; he would've lost by a smaller margin.)

Speaking of phony, please note that Kerry tossed someone else's medals over the fence. He kept his own.

It's interesting what aspects of legal experience we think are important to our highest court, and which ones no one gives a #### about.

What's shocking IMHO is how unqualified most people nominated to SCOTUS are.

Or to have a criminal defense lawyer on the Court?

or a prosecutor? or someone who represented actual clients?

Have any of these judges any real experience, prosecuting or defending a criminal action? A civil breach of contract action, tort action, conducted a real estate closing, negotiated a settlement agreement?

I represent banks and insurance companies, almost never do I have to deal with SCOTUS law, but when I do, I generally scratch, my head thinking, "WTF, these guys really have no idea about what is really going on in these fields do they?" (Not that I'm personally upset- such caselaw hasn't hurt ME)

1. What are you talking about? I thought my post #233 was pretty even-handed and objective. And the part you quoted did not take a position on anything, but was just a comment on what should have been expected and whether he was electable.

I'll walk the critique back a smidge, as you do caveat that it's unfair but not unexpected.

Don't you just love how this is sweepingly and confidently asserted, without the faintest scintilla of supporting factual evidence?

This has become a popular refrain in certain circles. Basically, when presented with the argument and evidence of their own epistemic closure, a significant percentage of the right agreed that "I know you are but what am I?!" was a valid response.

The point is taken, but the original point is better made, I think. The Court *really needs* a defense attorney on it. You'd think that a Court populated exclusively by advocates of the state would be bothersome to self-proclaimed "small government" types.

Plenty of today's liberals live their entire lives in narrow cocoons where their worldview is constantly reinforced. Their schools, their newspapers, their TV shows, their websites, their friends, all passing along the same received wisdom and approved beliefs, such that they come to mistake agreement for intelligence.

There's a certain amount of truth to that, but it'll be a cold day in Hell before you'd ever admit that conservatives are even more self-referential and self-limiting in their preferred sources of information. Or are all those Limbaugh / Hannity / Ingraham / Coulter / Savage (etc.)radio shows, Fox News, and "Christian" academies simply figments of the liberal imagination?

As a BTF aside, I think it is funny that it is Furtado, not Repoz, who posted this.

"Here, I invite you to discuss this topic. But maybe you shouldn't really be discussing it, as I don't want this site to be known as a site that discusses these topics; so I'll have to put you on your own special micro-island. What? I implied that it was wrong for you to discuss it?"

The link was to a funny moment for the President. It wasn't a link to the Supreme Court immigration decision. That you guys can't behave yourselves isn't my problem. It is your problem. I guess in your world if a segment on breast feeding shows up on TV in a show you are watching, it's perfectly OK for your kids to start crudely talking about the breasts of the girls in their classes.

FYI, although I'm about a couple of months away from finishing the redesign, I plan on implementing the revised Hot Topic set-up for controversial topics as soon as possible. It won't have all the bells and whistles that the final version will have, and the controversial off-topic stuff will also only be viewable within the Beta, but, at this point, I am tired of the game some of you guys are playing. My patience for this issue has worn out.

I think it would be great to have a trial lawyer or two on the Court. I'd also like to see a career scholar and maybe an ex-politician. I don't think it's good for the court that the Justices have such similar backgrounds.

It's more likely than you think. Plenty of today's conservatives live their entire lives in narrow cocoons where their worldview is constantly reinforced. Their schools, their newspapers, their TV shows, their websites, their friends, all passing along the same received wisdom and approved beliefs, such that they come to mistake agreement for intelligence. To the extent they are aware of dissenting views, those views almost invariably take the form of strawmen or caricatures. On those rare occasions they venture outside their cocoon and encounter disagreement phrased intelligently, it causes them great cognitive dissonance. Thus the reliance on sneering dismissals, accusations of bad faith or downright evilness, and the refusal to engage with good faith arguments. While perhaps annoying to deal with in person, this is a weakness to be exploited.

hey it works that way too!!!!

Seriously, I WORK with a bunch of conservatives, my clients are rife with conservatives, not unexpectedly given where I live, most of my neighbors are conservatives, I did not and do not watch Keith Olbermann, in fact I avoid such political commentary shows (left or right) because they are so horrifyingly awful (Many years ago I used to watch Limbaugh when he had his TV show.. it was fascinating in an anthropological sense, but after a couple of shows you already know EVERYTHING he's said or will ever say on any topic...
I think the only people (left or right) who are actually in such cocoons are in fact the ideological pundits taht everyone is so fond of complaining about.

No, David. I'm discussing the bench reading, which was covered by court reporters. Neither you, nor I have first person reference to that reading (because Christ knows the SCOTUS is far too good to allow video cameras in their hallowed, holy halls.) You are attempting to shift the discussion to the dry text, because that allows you to presume that the dry text and the reading are identical, when they are not. I will not accept your moving the goal posts like that.

No, Sam. You said that what made it a rant was that "half of the reading was directed at the White House's recent decision on enforcement priorities." I am not moving any goalposts. I am asking your basis for that statement. No "court reporters" reported that, at least not that I saw.

One thing Scalia doesn't write is "dry text." But the content of the reading and the "text" are in fact identical. Is your argument that he raised his voice for that portion of his opinion?

There's a certain amount of truth to that, but it'll be a cold day in Hell before you'd ever admit that conservatives are even more self-referential and self-limiting in their preferred sources of information. Or are all those Limbaugh / Hannity / Ingraham / Coulter / Savage (etc.)radio shows, Fox News, and "Christian" academies simply figments of the liberal imagination?

Conservatives WANT to be where liberals already are when it comes to that sort of cocooning. They're working on it, but are still behind. It'll be interesting to see how successful they are in twenty years or so.

I guess in your world if a segment on breast feeding shows up on TV in a show you are watching, it's perfectly OK for your kids to start crudely talking about the breasts of the girls in their classes.

The link was to a funny moment for the President. It wasn't a link to the Supreme Court immigration decision. That you guys can't behave yourselves isn't my problem. It is your problem. I guess in your world if a segment on breast feeding shows up on TV in a show you are watching, it's perfectly OK for your kids to start crudely talking about the breasts of the girls in their classes.

You linked to a story about Obama. It's only natural that people start talking about Obama, and then politics generally, just as it's only natural that if you post a link about Hall of Fame candidates people will start talking about steroids.

This is not "misbehaving," and surely by now you can see that.

but, at this point, I am tired of the game some of you guys are playing. My patience for this issue has worn out.

Conservatives WANT to be where liberals already are when it comes to that sort of cocooning. They're working on it, but are still behind. It'll be interesting to see how successful they are in twenty years or so.

Conservatives WANT to be where THEY THINK liberals already are when it comes to that sort of cocooning.

Anyway, the question should be why should anyone want such cocooning? Yes that's an academic question, why do Hasids want to live with and only interact (as much as possible) with fellow Hasids - why do so many "fundamentalists" of so many different religions appear to share that drive? Is it inherent in human psychology?

There's a certain amount of truth to that, but it'll be a cold day in Hell before you'd ever admit that conservatives are even more self-referential and self-limiting in their preferred sources of information.

We're not. Not out of any great moral virtue, but simply because we have had to swim in hostile media waters for the past fifty years. It's a lot harder for conservatives to 'cocoon', even with talk radio out there, when all the print and TV media (prior to Fox) is so institutionally liberal.

That said, I think you still have a point, albeit not quite the one you thought. It's not that conservatives "even more" self-referential and prone to cocooning, because they're patently NOT -- all one needs to do is compare and contrast the "conservative hive-mind" sites like Hot Air or Ace of Spades with the "liberal hive-mind" sites like Daily Kos to see that, while reality-denying behavior is common on both sides, it's become an actual enforceable RULE on the left whereas the Right is so natively pessimistic (perhaps paranoid in the Hofstadter sense) that there's quite a bit more dissent and groupthink-puncturing eeyorish-ness w/r/t things like polling analysis.

What IS true, however, is that conservatives are finding it possible to 'cocoon' the way liberals have for decades in a way that was impossible before. The reason isn't talk radio, or Fox News, though those two DO form part of the weave; the reason is the INTERNET. The internet has made it possible for conservatives to gravitate exclusively towards sites that spew only the opinions and interpretations that they want to see and hear. They could do this before (see the prior paragraph), but now they can.

I think it's a horrible trend. It leads to increased radicalism (witness certain aspects of Tea Party-ish irredentism, which is driven primarily by online activism), but more importantly it leads to political stupidity. The inability of conservatives to 'cocoon' themselves into a cushy, reassuring world of right-wing views and opinions made them BETTER at the political game. More agile, more sensitive to the political desires of moderates and swing voters. We understood how The Other Guys thought and acted because we encountered it on a daily basis whether we liked it or not. If that goes away the Right is in danger of becoming every bit as dinosaurish as the limousine liberal Left.

We're not. Not out of any great moral virtue, but simply because we have had to swim in hostile media waters for the past fifty years. It's a lot harder for conservatives to 'cocoon', even with talk radio out there, when all the print and TV media (prior to Fox) is so institutionally liberal.

It's true, open any university biology text and it's all "evolution this" and "genetic drift that" and none of them ever say "Jesus this" and "Because god said so that."

Of course, I assume it's their open courting of Christian zealots that makes modern conservatives so quick to climb upon the cross.

I know, living in Georgia, I never ever see or interact with any "conservatives."

It was only yesterday I had to cover my ears and go LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA when two people at work were discussing with me Obama's health care law robbing them of their paychecks and why my anti-fracking stance was keeping gas prices up.

I think Bonifacio is closer to la Cara Surrealista, often.

Maybe he is actually some kind of repressed administrator at Cooper Union or something.

It's true, open any university biology text and it's all "evolution this" and "genetic drift that" and none of them ever say "Jesus this" and "Because god said so that."

How did we move from a discussion of media politics into a non sequitur attack on the idiocy of creationism? Were you just so desperate to work that Clever Little Zinger into the conversation that you had to shoehorn it into a place where it didn't even logically belong?

BTW not like it should matter, but I'm a conservative, an evangelical Christian, and a strong believer in evolution. (ZOMG HOW CAN IT BE TRUE?) Crap like "intelligent design" has no business in the classroom and anyone who pushes that malarkey instantly goes on my "suspicious" list.

Yes. It's just tribal sorting writ large. With the lack of anything greater to hold people together, be it shared experiences of the Great Depression/WW II, or a common enemy to serve as an existential threat, tribes splinter along differences.

I think it's a horrible trend. It leads to increased radicalism (witness certain aspects of Tea Party-ish irredentism, which is driven primarily by online activism), but more importantly it leads to political stupidity. The inability of conservatives to 'cocoon' themselves into a cushy, reassuring world of right-wing views and opinions made them BETTER at the political game. More agile, more sensitive to the political desires of moderates and swing voters. We understood how The Other Guys thought and acted because we encountered it on a daily basis whether we liked it or not. If that goes away the Right is in danger of becoming every bit as dinosaurish as the limousine liberal Left.

Of course it is. The internet allows child molesters to cocoon and engage in self-ratification. I have grave doubts that a world of tiny niches can co-exist with continental democracy and our political system of two groups of cocooned whack jobs preening about whose politicians are more "genuine" is already showing advanced signs of fray. As Krugman noted in the latest NY Review of Books, "But ultimately the deep problem isn't about personalities or individual leadership, it's about the nation as a whole. Something has gone very wrong with America, not just its economy, but its ability to function as a democratic nation. And it's hard to see when or how that wrongness will get fixed."

How did we move from a discussion of media politics into a non sequitur attack on the idiocy of creationism? Were you just so desperate to work that Clever Little Zinger into the conversation that you had to shoehorn it into a place where it didn't even logically belong?

I agree it was completely out of place in this discussion and as you said a complete non sequitur, but like it or not the Republican party has wed itself with that group.

As a Christian, though not a conservative, politically at least, I am anti-DH and interleague play, I just do not engage myself with other Christians in any form of conversation involving science.

Have any of these judges any real experience, prosecuting or defending a criminal action? A civil breach of contract action, tort action, conducted a real estate closing, negotiated a settlement agreement?

I represent banks and insurance companies, almost never do I have to deal with SCOTUS law, but when I do, I generally scratch, my head thinking, "WTF, these guys really have no idea about what is really going on in these fields do they?" (Not that I'm personally upset- such caselaw hasn't hurt ME)

Yes, several of them have some courtroom work - I don't know how many trials Sotomayor and Alito handled when they were DAs, but I'm sure it's a bunch.
Ginsburg and Roberts, at least, represented "actual clients" - they were just doing it at the appellate level, not in trials.
I think the last Supreme Court lawyer to defend a criminal case at trial was Thurgood Marshall. So it's been awhile.

I really like that Obama seems committed to quietly achieving unprecedented gender balance and racial diversity on the Supreme Court; I just wish that "diversity" would extend to the judges' schools and experience. Maybe the greatest legal mind in the country is some Town Lawyer in South Dakota, or a public defender in Georgia, or a trial judge in New Mexico. We'll never know, because no one will ever look.

Have any of these judges any real experience, prosecuting or defending a criminal action? A civil breach of contract action, tort action, conducted a real estate closing, negotiated a settlement agreement?

I represent banks and insurance companies, almost never do I have to deal with SCOTUS law, but when I do, I generally scratch, my head thinking, "WTF, these guys really have no idea about what is really going on in these fields do they?" (Not that I'm personally upset- such caselaw hasn't hurt ME)

Indeed. For instance, I loves me some Frank Easterbrook, but this decision shows a triumph of brilliance over trial experience.

BTW not like it should matter, but I'm a conservative, an evangelical Christian, and a strong believer in evolution

does your minister know? :-)

Seriously, though, those who believe in a literal reading of the [Protestant] Bible* how do they answer the question: "where did Cain's wife come from?" Generally they respond by angrily denouncing the person asking the question.

*An assertion that the Christian bible is meant to be read literally is a relatively recent phenomena, by contrast the Koran from almost day one has been asserted (in its Arabic version) to be a word for word rendering of God's word (in its Arabic version)- and that belief is a tenet of virtually all Islamic sects. Now, virtually all biblical scholars know and accept that our modern bible(s) are translations of older texts, which were translations of older texts... the earliest of which are simply no longer in existence- so even among biblical literalists there is an acceptance of a a certain amount of argument- does it say, "thou shalt not kill" or does it say, "thou shalt not murder." But in Islam, there can be no argument over the literal words (in Arabic anyway).

So (attempted thread hijack) when a religious document is unerring, and is the literal truth and is explicitly not written as allegory- what is a believer to do if shown that such document contradicts reality?

So (attempted thread hijack) when a religious document is unerring, and is the literal truth and is explicitly not written as allegory- what is a believer to do if shown that such document contradicts reality?

For believers there is no such possibility. The document *is* reality.

Much as many U.S. soldiers apparently did during WWII, when large segments among them blamed the Jews for dragging us into it.

As they say in Wikipedia, citation needed.

Even I'm not old enough to remember this, but most of what I've read on this does not corroborate that widespread (or "large segments") of the US Army as being anti-Semitic.

The U.S. military reflected broader American opinion, which had a large strain of anti-semitic beliefs running through it both before and during the war, as evidenced by the fact that in reply to a 1938 Roper Poll question "What kind of people do you object to?", 38% answered "Jews". Elmo Roper also stated that his polls showed that anti-semitism in the United States peaked in the year 1944. This whole topic is much too long and complex to go into a full discussion, but there's absolutely no reason to imagine that U.S. soldiers' views on Jews were any more sophisticated than that of the general population.

I will admit this to Surreal Face: about 2% of 1000+ Christians I've personally met believe in creationism over evolution. I just don't get out of my coccoon enough.

I believe that is only true if you discount that what those Christians hold close to their vest is the belief that God directs or impinges, or can impinge and direct, on evolution. That's not really denying creationism. That's earnest fellow traveling.

The U.S. military reflected broader American opinion, which had a large strain of anti-semitic beliefs running through it both before and during the war, as evidenced by the fact that in reply to a 1938 Roper Poll question "What kind of people do you object to?", 38% answered "Jews". Elmo Roper also stated that his polls showed that anti-semitism in the United States peaked in the year 1944. This whole topic is much too long and complex to go into a full discussion, but there's absolutely no reason to imagine that U.S. soldiers' views on Jews were any more sophisticated than that of the general population.

I think this is true -- Charles Coughlin's popularity didn't really wane once he went off the tracks, he ultimately got yanked off the air by the government and the Catholic church itself, which was starting to get a bit embarrassed by him.

The conversation about the cocoons that conservatives and liberals try to keep is dumb. That is all.

Honestly, I don't know where to laugh hysterically or just start weeping when I read all the cocooning posts. Do any of you really think liberals are 'worse' than conservatives (or vice versa)? Sometimes I feel like Socrates "I am smarter than you, because I know we are all stupid-asses".

as evidenced by the fact that in reply to a 1938 Roper Poll question "What kind of people do you object to?", 38% answered "Jews".

There was some fascinating polls and sociological studies conducted in the 1930s, one of my favorite ones was where there researchers contacted restaurants all over the country and asked if they would serve Chinese customers or black customers.

Later they took a list of the restaurants that said they would NOT serve asians, and sent a well dressed Chinese couple there- the vast majority let the couple in with no fuss.

They also tried sending a well dressed black couple to restaurants that had stated they would not serve blacks- that part of the study was quickly called off before they could figure out what % of restaurants would or would not serve the couple- the couple was physically threatened on more than one occasion.

The one clear thing shown was that racism was not like being pregnant- you can't be just a little pregnant, but you can be just a little racist

Asians, Jews and Blacks, faced racism in the 1930s US- but the type and virulence faced by blacks was FAR worse than the other groups

Anti-Semitic as in fry 'em, expel 'em, sterilize them, make them stop mutilating little boys, kick them out of the Hollywood movies--help me out here?

I would suspect expel 'em/kick 'em out of hollywood and wall street -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion sort of of stuff -- supposedly, Henry Ford was horrified when seeing concentration camp footage near the end of his life, but he spent most of the 20s and just more quietly in the 30s as a raging antisemitic.

It always confounds me how folks who seem in many ways to be quite smart and rational think you can heap conspiracy theories about world control or unsavory agendas onto a group and then be surprised when a large body of folks carry that to the logical conclusion.

Anti-Semitic as in fry 'em, expel 'em, sterilize them, make them stop mutilating little boys, kick them out of the Hollywood movies--help me out here?

Indeed, give me that question in 2012, "what kind of people do you object to," and I may say, "Southern Evangelicals"
but I'm not, you know, actually going to do anything to y'all. In fact I'd freely admit that I like Jihadists even less...

Charles Coughlin's popularity didn't really wane once he went off the tracks, he ultimately got yanked off the air by the government and the Catholic church itself, which was starting to get a bit embarrassed by him.

A couple of Bishops wanted him shut up, but only Father Coughlin's Bishop (or the Pope) could actually do so- and Coughlin's Bishop, Gallagher, was apparently a fellow traveler- what really did Coughlin in was that his sponsors wee dropping him like flies- there were also some government licensing tactics which I have to admit were grossly unconstitutional- not that I'd shed tear for Coughlin, as an Irish American Catholic I'm not sure who is a bigger disgrace, Father Coughlin or Pat Buchanan.

It's true, open any university biology text and it's all "evolution this" and "genetic drift that" and none of them ever say "Jesus this" and "Because god said so that."

How did we move from a discussion of media politics into a non sequitur attack on the idiocy of creationism?

It's a discussion of the insularity of libruls of course. Everyone knows the college system is designed as a librul indoctrination factory, and I presented clear evidence in that favor. Don't even get me started on the geology texts, which couldn't deny biblical truth any harder if they were written by Satan himself.

BTW not like it should matter, but I'm a conservative, an evangelical Christian, and a strong believer in evolution.

I'd give you a cookie but that would be a sorry exchange for the loss of your soul now that you doubt the validity of the bible. Plus some Papist might run up and bless the cookie, turning you into a cannibal.

I work in NYC, and I suppose many/large majority of the people I run into on the streets are liberals,but the majority I work and interact with are certainly are not.

Plus I've been hearing people complain about liberal judges my entire life (I started seeing people complain about conservative judges on the internet only within the past few years)... and I have to say this, there really are some (not a majority) liberal judges here, and let me tell you, try representing a bank from Texas and explaining to them that they can't do "X," because the judge assigned to the case is "liberal, as in NYC liberal, not Texas liberal." Liberal judges are pains in the ass, but if I've ever been accused of a crime or being foreclosed- I want one :-)